Homeowner vs. Archy

[kenb]

Homeowner gets to complete her house. http://www.malibutimes.com/articles/2007/03/28/news/news5.txt

kenb

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[Skrimpy]

I like this line...

"...Under current state regulation, the property owner is responsible for the cost of archeological testing of sites before building can begin.

The Farpoint landowner said, 'I have spent all I was required to spend and 10 times more to have this property surveyed.'..."

Sounds like the Archy is trying to pull some of that holier than thou crap to get a research project done. BS man. Absolute BS. I will burn my home to the ground before someone tells me what I can or can't do to it. Our ancestors died to keep crap like that from happening. She followed the repatriation laws and did what she was supposed to. That peice of crap state and that archy should back off.

 

[Calworks]

Quote from article..."But in America, the rights of the property owner still take precedence over the interests of the state."

Friggin A tweety property owners have rights that's way we are AMERICA, not land owned by state or monarchy

The Archy needs to shut his ^&% mouth.

 

[Skrimpy]

Quote from article..."But in America, the rights of the property owner still take precedence over the interests of the state."

Friggin A tweety property owners have rights that's way we are AMERICA, not land owned by state or monarchy

The Archy needs to shut his ^&% mouth.

Damn straight.

 

[kenb]

The homeowner did everything by the book, the state droped it. The archy should as well.

kenb

 

[lucky1777]

The Homeowner(s) knew they were building on an archeologically sensitive site. They knew the risks involved, and agreed to the terms and conditions set forth by the state of California.

This thread would probably be better off in the Personal Rants section, so the uninformed can continue bashing Archeologists and others who are trying to preserve history.

If it was such a sensitive site, the state should have not allowed her to build, then paid her for the property. Instead they get the homeowner to pay for the Archaeologist to do his testing. Sounds like a pretty good deal for the state. If it was mine I wouldn't have donated that to anyone. I would have sold it to recoup some of my money I paid for the Archaeologist. So if you want to go cry to the Mods. about getting this moved, go right ahead, or better yet why not inform us uninformed.

 

[Casull]

If it was such a sensitive site, the state should have not allowed her to build, then paid her for the property. Instead they get the homeowner to pay for the Archaeologist to do his testing. Sounds like a pretty good deal for the state. If it was mine I wouldn't have donated that to anyone. I would have sold it to recoup some of my money I paid for the Archaeologist. So if you want to go cry to the Mods. about getting this moved, go right ahead, or better yet why not inform us uninformed.

Ditto. If it were my property, I would let the archy know that whatever was recovered would be sold to the highest bidder, and that I would keep the proceeds.

 

[Skrimpy]

If it was such a sensitive site, the state should have not allowed her to build, then paid her for the property. Instead they get the homeowner to pay for the Archaeologist to do his testing. Sounds like a pretty good deal for the state. If it was mine I wouldn't have donated that to anyone. I would have sold it to recoup some of my money I paid for the Archaeologist. So if you want to go cry to the Mods. about getting this moved, go right ahead, or better yet why not inform us uninformed.

My point and you said it better than I did and before I had a chance to write it. He doesn't really give a crap about the article or the thread. He's just taking a jab at me. No biggie.

If you read the article the site is huge. One house isn't going to have much of an effect on the site. The Archy's just flipping because the site was going to be his claim to fame (he was going to be the first to find..yada yada and he was going to publish it) and it got scrubbed for her FREEDOM. As it should have been.

 

[Calworks]

It wasn't about bashing the Archy..it was preservation of property owner's rights, in an age where rights can be recinded at the stroke of a pen. The property owner fullfilled her obligations to the state as stated in the terms, I'm not against donating the point, I probably would have I'm not a collector of points. I wouldn't mind donating to a museum afterall your name goes on the label as the donor

by the way, I'm not uninformed

 

[Skrimpy]

If uninformed means free...yes I am. It sucks don't it?

 

[Smee]

The Homeowner(s) knew they were building on an archeologically sensitive site. They knew the risks involved, and agreed to the terms and conditions set forth by the state of California.

1. It was the HOMEOWNER'S PROPERTY, not the state's.

2. The HOMEOWNER apparently paid taxes on the property because it was the HOMEOWNER's PROPERTY --- the state had not taken it back.

3. The ARCHIE can take a flying leap unless he or the state COMPENSATES THE HOMEOWNER for the costs.

4. Even if the HOMEOWNER is compensated, it should be their choice. Besides, I saw the pic . . . looks just like all the other clovis points to me. If they don't have enough of em, come to Arkansas and walk a plowed rice or soybean field in the delta after a rain.

BTW, what will that single point teach them that they don't already know or assume they know?

That makes as much sense as one of my neighbors who has a large indian mound in her front yard. She can plant flowers on it, or leave it alone, but she can't remove it because it might hold something important like pottery shards, arrowheads, remains, or maybe some gold like an old man I knew found in the one in his garden back in the 1920's . . . The state might not be the one to profit from it, and we couldn't have that!!!!